Halloween (Rob Zombie's)

[Canelek]

First off, I really like the original (and its sequel)--hell I even liked 4 and 5. Halloween is probably one of the biggest fanboi horror flicks of all time.

Since I am not a fanboi of the original, it was an easy chore to go see this one, especialy since I really enjoyed Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses and its follow-up Devil's Rejects. Even with a short yet impressive resume, I figured at the very least I would be entertained.

Entertained I was! Wow, he really blew me away with this revisioning of a masterpiece. You can tell from the start that Zombie is a true fan of both the movie and the genre. Everything was creepy-dirty, down to the casting and filth-covered walls. Instead of taking us through the simple yet eerie motions of the original film, he decided to take us on a tour through the life of young Michael Myers--showing us why and how he came to be the most hulking, silent and brutal bastard ever to wear the Shatner mask.

I absolutely loved the suspense and genuine scares, and appreciated the classic slasher element that Zombie seems to have dialed in. Most 'horror' flicks these days are more gratuitous gore than horror, so the suspense was appreciated in this film.

5/5 for fun and a ballsy remake of a movie that I thought nobody would have the cajones to remake.

[Show]

I think Zombie finally figured out how to without a doubt leave no room for a sequel (unless it is sans Mikey)

[Fairweather Pure]

There has been a dvd quality print on the newsgroups for almost 2 weeks. It was the original cut, not what is shown in theaters. There is an extremely graphic rape scene that was cut for theaters that is still on this print.

I also think this remake is one of the few good ones out there. Zombie has stated he has no plans or intentions of there being a sequel to this Franchise.

[Fash]

saw it tonight and I was looking over my shoulder on the way through the parking lot... holy fuck this movie was sick.

[Show]

how did he know that was her? the last time he saw her she was an infant... to me that's the only real plot hole. that and her new parents happen to be the real estate people for her old house.

[Canelek]

saw it tonight and I was looking over my shoulder on the way through the parking lot... holy fuck this movie was sick.

[Show]

how did he know that was her? the last time he saw her she was an infant... to me that's the only real plot hole. that and her new parents happen to be the real estate people for her old house.

[Show]

Well, there was always the supernatural aspect of the series...that is what I would chalk it up to.

[Zamtuk]

I saw it and it was pretty damn good. However, I saw the dvd workprint, not the edited theater version. And I have a question to those who saw it in the theater; how did he escape from the mental hospital? The rape scene mentioned above was how he was able to do it, but what did they use in place of that to make him escape?

I didn't use spoilers because anyone who knows anything about this movie knows he escapes from the mental institution.

[Fash]

I saw it and it was pretty damn good. However, I saw the dvd workprint, not the edited theater version. And I have a question to those who saw it in the theater; how did he escape from the mental hospital? The rape scene mentioned above was how he was able to do it, but what did they use in place of that to make him escape?

I didn't use spoilers because anyone who knows anything about this movie knows he escapes from the mental institution.

[Show]

I didn't see the workprint so I'm a little confused by the question. They were going to move him, and he broke his chains and killed every single one of them, including the guy who was nice to him

[Zamtuk]

[Show]

wow. in the workprint, that new asshole guard and his buddy took some new inmate into myers cell and raped her in front of him, so he killed the two gaurds, stole his keys and walked out. but i did wonder what happened to that mexican guy, so I guess that explains that.

[Canelek]

[Show]

wow. in the workprint, that new asshole guard and his buddy took some new inmate into myers cell and raped her in front of him, so he killed the two gaurds, stole his keys and walked out. but i did wonder what happened to that mexican guy, so I guess that explains that.

[Show]

Hmmm, that's odd. I think I like the theatrical version then, although I need to pick up the workprint to have a better perspective. His manner of escape was pretty well done in the final cut. It demonstrated what a badassmotherfucker he is. And dude, the actor is a fucking beast.

Also, it was awesome to see Danny Trejo and Ken "Motherfucking" Foree with cameos. Ken Foree played the lead in the original Dawn of the Dead.

[Taison Earbiter]

I watched the DVD work print tonight. Before I go any further I should mention that the original is in my top 3 favorite horror films of all time and I thought The Devil’s Rejects was a *huge* step forward from 1000 Corpses.

[Show]

Sadly this movie is a constant contradiction of itself and whether you put it to stand on its own or side-by-side with the original it is a complete failure. I’m not sure what was changed between the work print and theatrical release other than the rape scene mentioned above, but I doubt there were any other major differences.

The reason the original film was so great was that Michael was an enigma that no one could explain. It’s a pretty simple concept that the thing people fear the most is what they don’t understand. You would think at some point someone would have brought this up to Rob before he explains away Michael’s childhood with the most overused cliché “bad home life” stories you could imagine. I can’t think of a logical reason to include his childhood as part of the story. Either he’s trying to make the point that Michael was a product of his environment (which kills the supernatural element of the original) or that he really is pure evil and he is just creating sympathy for the kid that is Michael (which again, makes no sense because I don’t want to feel bad for guy slashing up people for the next hour).

Between the points at which they skip ahead fifteen years and the final 10 minutes of the film I was bored senseless. I really wanted to just cut the movie off but I stick with it hoping that he would pull a rabbit out of the hat and some crazy plot twist would grab my attention back. For a brief second when Michael drops the knife I was genuinely curious on where he would go from here. That was soon killed by Michael dying in a hail of gunfire from the cops (did they do this in the theatrical release?!?). Really, did he think that was bold and clever to kill off one of the greatest horror icons ever like the average slasher nut job? I know he’s not writing to make room for a sequel but must every movie he directs end with the main characters going down in a hail of gunfire from the cops?

I’ll give him props on some stylistic moments; much like his other movies he does a great job of creating a world that is dark and gritty. Though no matter how great the atmosphere is at times it cannot begin to make up for the huge plot and structural flaws of the film. This film was just a mess that should have never been touched by anyone, much less such an inexperienced filmmaker such as Rob Zombie, no matter how much he loves and understands the genre.

[Canelek]

I watched the DVD work print tonight. Before I go any further I should mention that the original is in my top 3 favorite horror films of all time and I thought The Devil’s Rejects was a *huge* step forward from 1000 Corpses.

[Show]

Sadly this movie is a constant contradiction of itself and whether you put it to stand on its own or side-by-side with the original it is a complete failure. I’m not sure what was changed between the work print and theatrical release other than the rape scene mentioned above, but I doubt there were any other major differences.

The reason the original film was so great was that Michael was an enigma that no one could explain. It’s a pretty simple concept that the thing people fear the most is what they don’t understand. You would think at some point someone would have brought this up to Rob before he explains away Michael’s childhood with the most overused cliché “bad home life” stories you could imagine. I can’t think of a logical reason to include his childhood as part of the story. Either he’s trying to make the point that Michael was a product of his environment (which kills the supernatural element of the original) or that he really is pure evil and he is just creating sympathy for the kid that is Michael (which again, makes no sense because I don’t want to feel bad for guy slashing up people for the next hour).

Between the points at which they skip ahead fifteen years and the final 10 minutes of the film I was bored senseless. I really wanted to just cut the movie off but I stick with it hoping that he would pull a rabbit out of the hat and some crazy plot twist would grab my attention back. For a brief second when Michael drops the knife I was genuinely curious on where he would go from here. That was soon killed by Michael dying in a hail of gunfire from the cops (did they do this in the theatrical release?!?). Really, did he think that was bold and clever to kill off one of the greatest horror icons ever like the average slasher nut job? I know he’s not writing to make room for a sequel but must every movie he directs end with the main characters going down in a hail of gunfire from the cops?

I’ll give him props on some stylistic moments; much like his other movies he does a great job of creating a world that is dark and gritty. Though no matter how great the atmosphere is at times it cannot begin to make up for the huge plot and structural flaws of the film. This film was just a mess that should have never been touched by anyone, much less such an inexperienced filmmaker such as Rob Zombie, no matter how much he loves and understands the genre.

[Show]

Theatrical release has his demise via pointblank gunshot to the head while being straddled by the chick.

[Fash]

I watched the DVD work print tonight. Before I go any further I should mention that the original is in my top 3 favorite horror films of all time and I thought The Devil’s Rejects was a *huge* step forward from 1000 Corpses.

[Show]

Sadly this movie is a constant contradiction of itself and whether you put it to stand on its own or side-by-side with the original it is a complete failure. I’m not sure what was changed between the work print and theatrical release other than the rape scene mentioned above, but I doubt there were any other major differences.

The reason the original film was so great was that Michael was an enigma that no one could explain. It’s a pretty simple concept that the thing people fear the most is what they don’t understand. You would think at some point someone would have brought this up to Rob before he explains away Michael’s childhood with the most overused cliché “bad home life” stories you could imagine. I can’t think of a logical reason to include his childhood as part of the story. Either he’s trying to make the point that Michael was a product of his environment (which kills the supernatural element of the original) or that he really is pure evil and he is just creating sympathy for the kid that is Michael (which again, makes no sense because I don’t want to feel bad for guy slashing up people for the next hour).

Between the points at which they skip ahead fifteen years and the final 10 minutes of the film I was bored senseless. I really wanted to just cut the movie off but I stick with it hoping that he would pull a rabbit out of the hat and some crazy plot twist would grab my attention back. For a brief second when Michael drops the knife I was genuinely curious on where he would go from here. That was soon killed by Michael dying in a hail of gunfire from the cops (did they do this in the theatrical release?!?). Really, did he think that was bold and clever to kill off one of the greatest horror icons ever like the average slasher nut job? I know he’s not writing to make room for a sequel but must every movie he directs end with the main characters going down in a hail of gunfire from the cops?

I’ll give him props on some stylistic moments; much like his other movies he does a great job of creating a world that is dark and gritty. Though no matter how great the atmosphere is at times it cannot begin to make up for the huge plot and structural flaws of the film. This film was just a mess that should have never been touched by anyone, much less such an inexperienced filmmaker such as Rob Zombie, no matter how much he loves and understands the genre.

I understand what you're saying about the supernatural... but that's why I usually hate horror movies. I don't want supernatural, I want to be convinced. This is why I liked the original Saw so much, because it was as close to plausible as any. This re-incarnation of Halloween was not too far off.

[Taison Earbiter]

I understand what you're saying about the supernatural... but that's why I usually hate horror movies. I don't want supernatural, I want to be convinced. This is why I liked the original Saw so much, because it was as close to plausible as any. This re-incarnation of Halloween was not too far off.

I’m not a big fan of over-the-top supernatural implausible stories either. It’s just that was the thing that I thought made the original interesting. It never went out of its way to drive the point home; it simply left the door open for that option in the mind of the viewer. In this version, the door is slammed shut on that possibility and Michael is then just simply a psychopath with a knife, and I’ve seen plenty of those movies.

A lot of people seem to be enjoying the film for what it is, a dark and gritty stylistic slasher movie. I just thought if you want to watch a movie for gore, then the Saw films do it so much better than this. If you’re going to see how he retells the story then you’re probably going to be disappointed too because it’s full of plot holes and nothing terribly original.

I’ll watch the theatrical release when it comes out on DVD to see if my thoughts on it change. (it's been known to happen)

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Just watched it tonight. A truly great way of telling this old story. Zombie did a fantastic job. Amazing casting in this movie also. 10 out of 10.

[Siji]

A lot of people seem to be enjoying the film for what it is, a dark and gritty stylistic slasher movie. I just thought if you want to watch a movie for gore, then the Saw films do it so much better than this. If you’re going to see how he retells the story then you’re probably going to be disappointed too because it’s full of plot holes and nothing terribly original.

I found it rather boring myself. Better than the original, basically, but still boring. There were no moments where I jumped, it was completely predictable and not frightening anywhere.. The ending, imo, was lame.. yeah, he was 'more human (than human!)' in this version, but still. For gore, there are better films, for old-style scary, this didn't have it.. for me. Glad others liked it. Just didn't do it for me. 6/10 at best.

[Show]

Who the hell would sleep through the sounds of duct tape being unrolled and your head being taped down?

[Zamtuk]

[Show]

Who the hell would sleep through the sounds of duct tape being unrolled and your head being taped down?

[Show]

The guy was a raging alcoholic. You could sleep through anything if you were passed out. Check collegehumor.com for more instances.

I did think it was a bit weak on the gore side, maybe because I was expecting a lot more from Rob Zombie, but to be honest I was glad it was toned down.

[Canelek]

Keep in mind that gore is thrown around as a device for lack of a screenplay (re: Saw, Hostel, et al). It is the implied gore that worked here. Not to mention one has to not fanboi the shit out of the original to appreciate.

[Taison Earbiter]

I did think it was a bit weak on the gore side, maybe because I was expecting a lot more from Rob Zombie, but to be honest I was glad it was toned down.

That was one of the few things I actually did appreciate about this movie. I was afraid he would go all "House of 1000 Corpses" on it and make it a total bloodbath. Though I still think he failed on making the screenplay his own (I was hoping for something as strong as the script that Devil's Rejects had, though I knew he had to limit himself to keeping it somewhat similar to the original).

[Tyek]

Wasn't Tommy the name of the kid that took over as the killer later in the series? The girl was babysitting a kid named Tommy in the movie. I just thought that was either a coincidence, a tribute to the original series or foreshadowing the next film if this one does well. (With or without Zombie.)

[Canelek]

Wasn't Tommy the name of the kid that took over as the killer later in the series? The girl was babysitting a kid named Tommy in the movie. I just thought that was either a coincidence, a tribute to the original series or foreshadowing the next film if this one does well. (With or without Zombie.)

It is the same Tommy Doyle character used in one of the later movies. However, I don't think that he actually took over any murders, instead being a creepy obsessive guy that helps out somehow or another...think it may have been Halloween 6 or somesuch.

It was the young girl from 4 and 5 that seemed to be turning 'onto the dark path' before she went mute and got shipped off to the loony bin or whatever. Story was kinda all over the place...